AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 210 of 1980 dated 20-9-1982 by the Subordinate Judge at Khammam decreeing the suit for damages amounting to Rs. 40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% of per annum against the defendants.
The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that Low Tension wires were stretched over the filed of R. Mallaiah of village Patralapadu with the assistance of electric-poles. The electric energy was transmitted by the overhead live wires running across the aforesaid field stretched by the defendants in the usual course of its functioning. The field of deceased Sydaiah was situated near-by the field of R. Mallaiah. On 29-6-1980 when the deceased Sydaiah was going to his field through the foot-track which goes across the field of R. Mallaiah followed by his wife PW-I and son PW-2, he came in contact with the hanging live electric wire and got electrocuted and met with instantaneous death.
The plaintiffs alleged that the electric wire was hanging from the pole No. 17 from the month of April, 1980 and the defendants did not repair it in spite of repeated complaints. Due to the negligence and carelessness of the defendants the deceased Sydaiah met with the accident and lost his life. He was an agricultural labourer. He used to earn about Rs. 10/- per day and was 35 years of age at the time of his death, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to claim Rs. 40,000/- as damages from the defendants.
The defendants through their written statement denied that the accident had occurred due to their negligence. They have also denied that the electric wire in question was hanging from the month of April, 1980 or they did not pay any need to the complaints of the villagers to get it repaired. They pleaded that due to violent tempest on the previous night a wire slipped from the pole No. 17 and was hanging loosely between pole Nos. 16 and 18 in the agricultural land of R. Mallaiah. While passing through the foot-track the deceased Sydaiah in spite of warning of PWs-I and 2 accidentally touched the hanging live wire and was electrocuted. There is a Helper posted at Patralapadu village who periodically inspects the electric line and works under the supervision of a Line Inspector who is posted at a distance of hardly 10 Kms., from the village Patrlapadu and an Assistant Engineer of Electricity Board also stays at Tirumalayapalem which is situated hardly at a distance of 10 miles from the place of incident and all these persons maintain the electric lines in proper and safe condition. Since there was no negligence on the part of the defendants to maintain the electric lines, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim damages from them, particularly, when the deceased Sydaiah was himself responsible for the accidental death. They have also challenged the quantum of compensation claimed on the ground that it is excessive.
The learned lower Court, on assessment of evidence on record, reached to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due the negligence of the defendants and, therefore, they are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the plaintiffs.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants have come up in appeal.
The defendants have a statutory authority under The Electricity Act, 1910, read with the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, to transmit electric energy. The defendants, therefore, cannot be made liable for nuisance for the escape of electrical energy on the principle accepted in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R. 1 Ex. 265,. The defendants, however, are still liable for negligence. It is negligence to omit to use all reasonable known means to keep the electricity harmless; (see Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 13th Edition, paragraph 1536). The burden of proving that there was no negligence is on the defendants and there is no obligation on the plaintiffs to prove negligence. Further, the standard of care required is a high one owing to the dangerous nature of electricity; (see Charlesworth on Negligence, 5th edition, p. 531). If the defendants produce no material and offers no evidence to negative negligence, negligence will be presumed. This result will also follow on the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Live broken electric wires carrying high tension energy are generally not found in a public place, street or road, therefore, if such a thing happens a prima facie inference can be drawn that there has been some carelessness on the part of the defendant in transmitting electric energy or in properly maintaining the transmission lines. This inference in further supported by Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. This rule provides that every overhead line which is not covered with insulating material and which is erected over any part of a street or other public place or any factory or mine or on any consumer''s premises shall be protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks. If the precaution under this rule is taken the line in case it breaks would become dead and harmless. The burden of proof that there was no negligence on its part lies on the Electricity Board because of nature of the object, that is, electricity, which it owns. It must show that all necessary precautions were taken and observed by them. Thus the burden of proof that there had been no negligence or carelessness is on the Electricity Board.
D.W.2 who is the Helper at the time of the accident has stated on oath that the electric wire was snapped off due to gusty wind in the previous night and he came to know about it only after the accident has occurred that the electric wire had snapped and was hanging from pole No. 17 at the relevant time. The Assistant Engineer DW-1 has prepared a report Ex. B-1 on the basis of the statement of PWs-1 and 2. But, they have not been contradicted with their statement during the course of their cross-examination. It was not suggested to them that due to the storm in the previous night the electric wire had snapped off from the electric pole No. 17. The document Ex. B-2, appears to be inadmissible in evidence also because the original of the same had been withheld by the defendants. It is pertinent to note that the case of the defendants is that the Helper resides in the same village and periodical checking was done by him. Had there been a violent tempest on the previous night, it was the duty of DW-2 to have checked whether any wire from the electric pole had been snapped of which appears to be a usual incident. His act of not doing his duty in going around the fields before the incident occurred by itself shows the negligence on his part. The witnesses of the plaintiffs have denied that there was a gusty wind on the previous night. The learned lower Court has disbelieved the evidence of the defendants on this point and I see no reason to reach to a contrary conclusion because the live broken electric wires carrying high tension energy and covered with insulating material was not protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks and it goes a long way to show that if the precaution under Rule91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 had been taken the line when it broke would have become harmless. As the defendants have not produced any acceptable evidence, whatsoever, to place the facts showing that all necessary precautions were taken and there was no negligence on its part, it must be held that the accident happened because of the negligence of the defendants.
Even otherwise, there is evidence on record that the wire had snapped of some time in the month of April, 1980 and in spite of the complaints it remained unrepaired. There is also evidence on record that on complaint the villagers were told that the broken wire has become dead and no electric current was flowing through it. There is evidence on record that on previous occasions the broken hanging wire had no electric current. The learned lower Court, on assessment of the oral evidence on record, has believed the version of the plaintiffs. Nothing could be brought out in cross-examination of these witnesses to weaken their testimonies. Therefore, agreeing with the learned lower Court, I hold that believing that the electric wire had no current at the relevant time, the deceased Sydaiah had lifted it while crossing the pole and it cannot be said that he himself was responsible for the accident.
So far as the quantum of damages is concerned, the learned lower Court, though applying the multiplier of 20 to the multiplicand of Rs. 2,520-50 paise, had reduced the compensation to Rs. 40,000/-, which appears to be proper and reasonable and no interference is called for.
In result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower court are hereby confirmed. The defendants-appellants shall bear their own costs as well as the costs of the respondents-plaintiffs.